COVID vaccination

[Jo_the_boat]

I dislike and am uncomfortable about the way, even on this forum, that those who want to stop and think and research information about the vaccines are vilified and often called names like stupid or selfish.

For several reasons I distrust the government. Good and reasonable reasons. Thus I am taking my time to learn more. I am pro-vaccine in general. My age group and health bracket have several months before the opportunity will present itself.

I firmly believe in open debate and polite discussion on this is important.

Yep, sensible approach IMO.
I think we are all perfectly justified in questioning the authorities and promoting open debate.
It worries me and puts up a red flag when debate is shut down. There is all sorts of tosh talked, some out of panic because people are desperate to believe that a golden bullet is just round the corner, some out of ignorance, some just to get something out on the internet. But there are papers, articles, videos, etc. by some petty sensible and trustworthy folk, scientists, medics and others. We shouldn't just believe what they say because it's possible they have their own agenda, financial perhaps. But they definitely should not be prevented from speaking out. It's up to us to weed out the irrelevant.
Here's another article worth a read.

 

[Jo_the_boat]

Oh for sure I can understand that. Funnily enough on another site the Danish mask Study was mentioned but the author of the post didn't post the whole article which suggested that the study was far from conclusive. I won't bore you with it here but I posted it on my Covid General Chat thread in post #1710 and it just shows how a few lines added/deleted/forgotten in any article can change the whole dynamic for the reader.

It's like the Sweden situation where a quick Google search will show up articles where Anders Tegnell is one minute saying Sweden succeeded then in the next breath saying Sweden failed. It is indeed very difficult to find 100% answers so one can forge his/her own opinion.

Quite right, which makes it all the more important to hear a balanced debate about vaccines.
Believe me, I want an answer to all this as much as anyone.
Right at the start of this at the beginning of the year we saw horrific film from China and Northern Italy, sensationalized by a frenzied media. Then Fergusons 500,000 deaths (erroneous) warning based on inadequate science and poor data. (He covered himself qualifying his estimate by saying, 'if we don't take drastic action', or something similar.) Well, we took drastic action and ar still taking it. Was it the right action??? To me no. But others may not agree.

 

[zand]

The problem was we saw China and thought it wouldn't happen to us. We saw Italy and behaved like a rabbit in the headlights. Did we learn from the mistakes Italy made? No we did the same things as they did. Did Australia and NZ learn from our mistakes? Yes.

I am apprehensive about the Covid vaccines and thought I would refuse one. However having read comments on this thread, particularly those from @Max68 re not being able to afford to wait 10 years for it to be properly assessed, I will have one when I am invited to do so. Not keen on it but I will (probably...)

 

[Max68]

The problem was we saw China and thought it wouldn't happen to us. We saw Italy and behaved like a rabbit in the headlights. Did we learn from the mistakes Italy made? No we did the same things as they did. Did Australia and NZ learn from our mistakes? Yes.

I am apprehensive about the Covid vaccines and thought I would refuse one. However having read comments on this thread, particularly those from @Max68 re not being able to afford to wait 10 years for it to be properly assessed, I will have one when I am invited to do so. Not keen on it but I will (probably...)

For me the decision is made really due to the situation with my mum. Every time we visit her in the care home behind a Perspex screen she is in constant tears because due to her dementia she cannot understand why we can't hold her hand or give her a hug and to walk out at the end of a visit without being able to physically reassure or comfort her is a feeling I cannot describe without setting off the sites obscene language filter! We can't wait 10 years to be able to have that back. People talk about this pandemic affecting people mentally, well I can tell you being unable to comfort mum destroys my sister and I and I cannot get the constant visions of leaving her out of my head. To hear her shouting at me "I wouldn't leave my mum like this" kicks the wind out of you. If a vaccine allows me to give her a hug and hold her hand then that is a risk worth taking for me.

 

[zand]

For me the decision is made really due to the situation with my mum. Every time we visit her in the care home behind a Perspex screen she is in constant tears because due to her dementia she cannot understand why we can't hold her hand or give her a hug and to walk out at the end of a visit without being able to physically reassure or comfort her is a feeling I cannot describe without setting off the sites obscene language filter! We can't wait 10 years to be able to have that back. People talk about this pandemic affecting people mentally, well I can tell you being unable to comfort mum destroys my sister and I and I cannot get the constant visions of leaving her out of my head. To hear her shouting at me "I wouldn't leave my mum like this" kicks the wind out of you. If a vaccine allows me to give her a hug and hold her hand then that is a risk worth taking for me.

For me, it was my aunt, also with dementia. She died back in April and I can't forgive myself for not being able to see her for the last 6 weeks of her life. I had to stay away as I had Covid, then there was lockdown, then she died of Covid having picked it up whilst being in rehab for a broken arm. I know it wasn't my fault that I didn't see her, but it feels like it was. I couldn't even speak to her on the phone as the hospital where she went for the initial treatment on her arm lost her hearing aids.

 

[Member496333]

Sounds like a very rigorous trial with no stone or safety consideration left unturned. Expect the actual doses used. Time to wake up and smell the coffee...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...e-trial-led-huge-boost-jabs-success-rate.html

 

[Catlady19]

If by that you mean accurate and precise them I plead guilty.

I don't.

 

[Catlady19]

Please don't be disingenuous and even hint that I am writing anybody off. That appears to be a veiled way of shaming me and shutting down discussion.
Nobody is denying that the disease, covid-19, is new but coronoviruses are not. This virus will run it's course, as many, many run their course for millennia. Lockdowns and masks will not stop it's spread. That's not me saying that, have a look around the internet.
Caution, personal responsibility, shielding the vulnerable and elderly is and should have been the way to combat this virus. If we'd done that more people may well have lived longer. The proportion of healthy people under 65 dying is tiny.
A rushed-through, ill-tested vaccine is what people want but it may well not be the right approach. I'll repeat, to shut out the concerns of scientists and medics is morally wrong. Not just for them but for all of us.
'Following the science' says the establishment. But are they really?
There is just too much contra information out there to ignore. In fact, why not take a few minutes to read this. I've highlighted this article, which is one of hundreds, because it also contains The Great Barrington Declaration which is authored by three professors from Oxford, Harvard and Stanford and endorsed by 44,000 clinicians, scientists and public health experts.
This is not something dreamed up by 'Karen' on the internet. These are real people on the front line of medicine and research.
If there was just David Icke yelling from a rooftop then we'd be justified in ignoring him. But it's not.
Frankly, I want this to be all done and dusted as much as anyone else but I am becoming increasingly concerned about our appoach and the strategy of the powers that be.

Wait, I am being disingenuous? Ok then! Do you know how patronising you sound?
How, exactly, would you shield the vulnerable and elderly when many of them live with other people and the virus can easily be passed to them.... a vaccine perhaps?
The vaccines do not appear to be ill-tested, they have been tested on thousands of people; many of the processes which take many years (ie financing and obtaining volunteers for trials) have been extinguished or sped up because this is a pandemic affecting the whole world and it is needed as fast as possible, that does not mean that safety procedures have been erased. The newest Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine for instance, has been modified from the Ebola vaccine and hence they already had a base to start with. They will all have to pass rigorous safety tests with the MHRA before it can be administered.
I am well aware of The Great Barrington Declaration (no need for a lecture on them) and actually I totally agree with them in principle (I am not a fan of lockdowns unless needed to protect the NHS) but they do not accurately describe how they would protect the elderly and vulnerable without the use of a vaccine (apart from locking them in a hotel room). Because they can't.
Yes, we need a full discussion about the vaccines available, ingredients, side effects, etc and they need to pass through MHRA but I do not see how we can achieve safety for elderly and vulnerable people without one. Even the GBD say they do not know how long natural herd immunity will take and it is more likely to be achieved with vaccination.

 

[Goonergal]

All, can we please keep the discussion civil and refrain from sniping. Thanks.

 

[Member496333]

The newest Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine for instance, has been modified from the Ebola vaccine and hence they already had a base to start with. They will all have to pass rigorous safety tests with the MHRA before it can be administered.

It's a shame they didn't know how much they were actually administering though

See post #127 for reference. Doesn't sound to me much like a robust clinical trial, but we are all entitled to our own viewpoints of course.

 

[Catlady19]

IShort of wearing a divers helmet or a spacesuit, I see it as an easy and cheap solution. .

Have you seen this new invention?

 

[Catlady19]

It's a shame they didn't know how much they were actually administering though

See post #127 for reference. Doesn't sound to me much like a robust clinical trial, but we are all entitled to our own viewpoints of course.

That's what trials are for - testing which is the best way to administer and what works best. Forgive me for taking the accuracy of a report written in the Daily Mail with a pinch of salt.

 

[Oldvatr]

Have you seen this new invention?
View attachment 45671

Not compatible with a mobility scooter or other vehicle driving. Think the gear used by fighter pilots in WW2 more suitable. My son is working on a design using snorkelling gear and recreation diving masks but finding appropriate filters is proving difficult. I note that the photo is entitled VZYR, but the apparatus has VYZR which is presumably translated to Visor so the title is wrong? Or I have OCD?

 

[Member496333]

That's what trials are for - testing which is the best way to administer and what works best. Forgive me for taking the accuracy of a report written in the Daily Mail with a pinch of salt.

Point taken on the Daily Mail, but AstraZeneca have reportedly admitted themselves that they messed-up the dosages. Obviously it's up to the individual to reach their own conclusion but for me the klaxons are going off just on that alone.

 

[Goonergal]

All, can we please keep the discussion civil and refrain from sniping. Thanks.

A post has been deleted for ignoring this request.

Any further, similar posts will be deleted and may incur further sanctions including thread bans.

 

[Catlady19]

Point taken on the Daily Mail, but AstraZeneca have reportedly admitted themselves that they messed-up the dosages. Obviously it's up to the individual to reach their own conclusion but for me the klaxons are going off just on that alone.

Well I would say it is a good job they did as they may well have improved the efficacy to 90%! Sometimes God works in mysterious ways.

 

[Catlady19]

Not compatible with a mobility scooter or other vehicle driving. Think the gear used by fighter pilots in WW2 more suitable. My son is working on a design using snorkelling gear and recreation diving masks but finding appropriate filters is proving difficult. I note that the photo is entitled VZYR, but the apparatus has VYZR which is presumably translated to Visor so the title is wrong? Or I have OCD?

Ooh good spot; the bit in the bottom right was the name of the company and I think was therefore a spelling mistake by the whoever wrote the article. Think it should of said VYZR Technologies.

Send us a pic of your son's invention when ready, love to see it!

 

[Oldvatr]

Well I would say it is a good job they did as they may well have improved the efficacy to 90%! Sometimes God works in mysterious ways.

The admission that they were sufficiently on the ball to detect that something unexpected was going on, and to diagnose it as being that the first dose was diluted, then instigating full dose for the follow up tranche gives me some confidence in their safety monitoring. indeed they halted the trials twice when someone had an adverse reaction that they had to resolve before they resumed also shows they were dealing responsibly with the feedback data.

Just seen a CDC spox in USA on CNN discuss this dichotomy of "wannit now" vs "wait for more testting" and they say that the first couple of hundred thousand (200K) sessions will be followed up and used to give a further 3 months of safety data that will be shared for peer review too. Does not necessarily apply to Borisland but we can but hope NICE will be in that loop too. The trouble is that lmg term data implies long term wait, unless accelerated methods are used which would undermine the faith in that science too. Part of the delay in authorising the vaccines now is publish and peer review of the safety data by independent reviewers, so hopefully there is no kickback involved there.

 

[Oldvatr]

There may be cause for scepticism. Apparently, and as reported in Bing, the Pfizer CEO placed £5.6m of his shares up for sale on the day that the company announced their trial results. The deputy chair of same company also placed her entire holding up for sale on the same day. Insider trading? FAKE NEWS!

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/11/investing/pfizer-ceo-albert-bourla-stock-sale-vaccine/index.html

 

[Jo_the_boat]

We’re after a golden bullet, I don’t believe a vaccine is one yet. The tests done so far prove that it won’t do us any (much) damage but they haven’t convinced me that 70 – 90% is good enough. They have tested healthy people, including some over 70s, of course they had to start there, but the healthy are not the vulnerable. One of the stipulations of volunteering for the Oxford trial is that you have to be healthy.

Healthy people under 60 have a tiny chance of dying, especially now as treatment has improved.

I think that until a vaccine is sufficiently tested on every age-group with a variety of adverse health conditions, we don’t know enough. That’s just my opinion (or is it?).

I believe, from what I have heard and read by those I consider to be informed, that there already is a golden bullet, and that is the virus itself. Back in March / April scientists were predicting that the course of the pandemic would follow a typical course and follow a classic profile. Huge initial spike, fast decrease into a children’s slide, second bump (where we are now in winter as predicted) then fade away to the background. The golden bullet is the natural decline of the virus over time, and probably not that long.
(Reporting of testing and deaths is a shambles in my opinion anyway. ‘Cases’ are not infections and deaths reported ‘within 28 days of a positive test’ is a complete misrepresentation of deaths directly caused by covid 19).

The sars-cov-2 pandemic (worldwide) which became an epidemic (localized) will become endemic. The virus will always be here, like the common cold and flus.

Regarding the vaccines there are still too many questions. For example:

Who to vaccinate? Some VERY difficult decisions will have to be made.

Do we start with my Aunt Maude (generic) because she is the most important? What about Uncle Frank across the road, he’s only 3 years older and not too poorly yet, doesn’t he deserve another few months / a year?

Do we start with the over 70s, 72s, 75s, 80s or everyone?
People with stage 4 lung cancer, advanced heart-disease, badly controlled diabetes, obese people (crikey, best not go there)?
What about people who refuse to take the vaccine? Can we force them to take it? Or, if not will they have to wear a flashing danger sign?
Do we send the vulnerable and elderly out shopping with 90 / 80 / 70% vaccine success rate? They will be exposed to 80% of the population who have not been vaccinated. And what about those ‘in their prime’ who have been vaccinated, do we know that they are totally non-infectious or just 90% or 70% perhaps?

There are numerous reasons why I have a distrust of the establishment’s response at the start and ongoing. I came across another yesterday, one that makes me question why we have followed the course we have……

In 2019 WHO (World Health Organisation) guidelines said contact tracing was NOT recommended where virus is established because by the time the results come through and things are chased down a virus is already over the horizon.
(Perhaps with an island nation where it’s hardy arrived?? Like New Zealand for example who reacted early enough, having seen other countries struggles.)
Also, WHO said that quarantine of exposed individuals was NOT recommended because it makes no discernible difference.

In 2019 they unsurprisingly never mentioned nation-wide lockdowns, presumably because it would have been just too absurd to do so. In fact, as far as I know China invented the lockdown. The rest of the world, instead of following advice that the WHO hadn’t even contemplated, followed China. Ultimately lockdowns and mask-wearing make very little difference.

Just at the moment all the talk, or the vast majority of media talk anyway, is about Christmas. It’s indicative of our response to the crisis that decisions on our long-term future, that of our elderly, vulnerable and everybody else, is being influenced by the period of a week. It’s quite convenient in a way because it deflects from the real issues, life and death, science-based research and response. Not that we’ve followed the genuine science to this point anyway. And before I’m accused of lack of compassion, yes, I’d love to spend time with my grandkids.

My opinions by the way are despite me having vascular disease and (well controlled) T2. Which is partly why my thoughts turn to the future……

I think that we need to focus away from short-termism. From what I’ve read and heard recently (the ideas are out there if you look), we need to look closely at long-term metabolic health. I understand it plays a large part in not just T2 diabetes but cancers, cardiovascular disease, cerebrovascular disease etc. etc. Severe reaction to covid 19 is exacerbated by poor metabolic health. As a quarter of the UK is obese, that perhaps is a good place to start. How many of those who have died were, at least in part, sadly responsible for their own demise? Even if they weren’t aware of the fact. Hopefully next time a nasty new virus arrives, we’ll be better prepared both individually and nationally.

There, I haven’t insulted anybody.